Raising the bar on the Gateway pipeline

Blog -
Dec. 6, 2011 - By Nathan Lemphers

With the U.S.
Department of State's decision on the Keystone XL pipeline delayed until 2013,
much of the attention in Canada has been shifting west towards Enbridge's
proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline to the B.C. coast. After the Keystone XL
announcement, Prime Minister Stephen Harper was quick to threaten to ship oilsands crude to Asia — a point
the Prime Minister will likely repeat when he meets with President Obama tomorrow.

Last week, the
Pembina Institute, the Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC) and Living
Oceans Society released a new report, Pipeline and Tanker
Trouble: the impact to British Columbia's communities, rivers and Pacific coast
line from tar sands oil transport. The report was intended to serve as an
accessible resource to British Columbians who would like to learn more about
the potential impacts from Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway oilsands
pipeline, from upstream production to transport by pipeline to shipping in
tankers.

The report found
there are unique challenges associated with transporting oilsands oil as
opposed to other forms of oil. For instance, it sinks in water, making cleanup
very challenging, and may lead to increased corrosion in pipelines. Pipeline and Tanker Trouble also
outlines the additional risks to tankers carrying oilsands crude, highlights
the risks from unstable, landslide-prone terrain along the proposed route and
the risks to First Nations communities and B.C.'s salmon fisheries.

Looking back
at the media coverage last week, the report received significant attention in
the national and British Columbia news media. Enbridge chose to downplay
the concerns raised in the report, calling it "fear-mongering" and suggesting the authors were pushing
for unrealistic safety standards. Paul Stanway, an Enbridge spokesperson who commented on Enbridge's approach to risk
management, said, "It depends on where you place the bar. Our aim is to
make this a safe project, to build and operate Northern Gateway as safely as
humanly possible."

It does depend
on where you place the bar. Given the significant opposition from British Columbians and First
Nations, the environmental impacts from oilsands production and the unique
landscape and livelihoods that would be at risk, the bar for Enbridge should be
set accordingly high.

Alternatively,
one could use Enbridge's logic and simply lower the bar to the point where
concerns seem unreasonable and the project can proceed.

Enbridge has said that it has been aware from the beginning that Gateway is a
"controversial project." This has certainly proven to be the case. As such,
instead of lowering the bar and choosing to ignore the
environmental impacts from expanded oilsands development necessary to fill this
pipeline, the federal government should strive to set the bar high, consider
both positive and negative impacts from the project and exceed the expectations
of Canadians for a thorough and objective review to determine whether this
pipeline is in the public interest.

The Pembina Institute's perspective on
oilsands pipelines

As an
organization that has spent nearly two decades working on the regional impacts
of oilsands development, we are solutions-oriented and have long advocated for responsible
oilsands development. Only when upstream oilsands impacts,
including regional environmental impacts and growing greenhouse gas pollution,
have been adequately addressed would it be appropriate to consider which
transportation routes would maximize benefits and minimize environmental risks
and impacts. Until then, it is irresponsible to approve new pipeline capacity —
if you build it, you will fill it.

In the case of
Gateway, there are additional challenges beyond the upstream impacts.

On top of the regional and climate implications of oilsands development in
Alberta, there are increasing market concerns, real risks and growing
liabilities coming from downstream customers of oilsands — whether from Americans concerned about the risks of oilsands
pipelines, or Europeans wanting to reduce the carbon emissions
from their transportation sector.

Until these upstream issues are adequately
addressed, there will continue to be downstream concerns. The response to these
concerns will have impacts on both market access and Canada's international
reputation and credibility on the environment and sustainable development.

In addition, unprecedented
opposition from First Nations and British Columbians, a hazardous and unstable pipeline route and significant risks
from oil supertanker traffic along B.C's coast together make the pipeline a
very tough sell.

Time to raise the bar

As the Joint
Review Panel for the Northern Gateway pipeline begins their public consultation
in January, it will be critical for the Panel to listen to the concerns of
First Nations and British Columbians and consider the issues raised in Pipeline and Tanker Trouble. More than 4,000 people — an unprecedented number — have signed
up for the public consultation to share their perspectives on the pipeline with
the Panel.

Given the
amount of public criticism this pipeline proposal is creating, instead of
lowering the bar for Enbridge, the federal government should listen to the
vocal opposition to the pipeline and raise the bar for how the project is
evaluated and considered. Until that happens, there remains little room for the
federal government to declare that this review process will lead to an informed
decision that reflects the interest of Canadians.